So, the Bush administration will go down in history as a success, after all.

God Bless America,
Land that I love.
Stand beside her, and guide her
Thru the night with a light from above.
From the mountains, to the prairies,
To the oceans, white with foam
God bless America, My home sweet home.

Is this supposed to be funny? the u.s has some kind of "influence" over there in Iraq? the Iraq oil ministry- is that anything like the Iraq "government". The real shocker here of course is the suggestion that president bush might in some way be involved in Iraq oil deals!
those dingbats over at the Times need to start reading something besides their own papers. wonder if anyone has told them what the u.s. armed forces have been doing over there the last five years

Shrub said yesterday,The Goverment had no influence on business deals envolving Iraq oil feilds, didnt any of you imploded the buildings? Im sorry ,I meant to say Believe him???
blah blah blah .. (just sheep down here) blah blah blah..

I suspect these advisers were doing some HEAVY BREATHING given that their masters had used some HEAVY BREATHING while giving them their assignment...there is an nyt acct of one of these sessions quite some time ago in which fallons was in attendance.

I have written elsewhere that it is essentially irrelevant what Obama says and does between now and the elections in November. However, I must call him an unprincipled hypocrite for being silent on the new oil contracts with Iraq. Obama opposes off-shore and ANWR drilling in the USA because "it sends the wrong message." Fair enough but wrong anyway. Thus far he has been silent on the oil contracts with Iraq. Does new drilling in Iraq NOT "send the wrong message"? Is it OK to damage the environment of a Middle Eastern country inhabited by "Airabs" but not our precious USA? Looks as if that is the way with Obama. Unprincipled hypocrite.

I am astounded by persons who think that they know what Obama will do once he is elected president. How many citizens who voted for John F. Kennedy expected him to approve the illegal "Bay of Pigs" invasion of Cuba? How many of his voters expected him to up the ante in Vietnam? How many expected him to get politically spanked by Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna? How many expected him to do almost absolutely nothing on civil rights while anti-discrimination disobedience was raging throughout the country?

Ken Nuti, you're right, never underestimate MSM/governments' disinformation/propaganda machine!

First the NY Times tells us the big 4 oil companies are back in Iraq. And now this, both "news" stories seem a bit suspicious.

Given the PR campaigns by the big 4 about how they're here to help guide us through the 'energy crisis', how all but Exxon are going green, (obvious greenwashing) but, nevertheless, an attempt at placating the masses, making people believe that we can trust them to help solve the crisis in energy.

This trusting relationship with energy producers combined with a war for oil makes me envision a way for them to get popular support for an unpopular war. Our economy won't survive without oil, at least that's been the pitch lately. The pitch I'm hearing goes something like this:

"Of course we're concerned about global warming, BUT, we need to take care of our own, and these responsible companies can help us do it."

Be wary when the administration lets the NY Times say it was a war about oil. Be wary when the NY Times shows us how oil companies moved into Iraq "legally."

Recall this?: the NY Times was the lap dog that led us to war in the first place. They fed us the war last time, what's going on this time?

Don't get excited folks.

'"Iraq is negotiating with Shell, BP, ExxonMobil, Chevron and Total, and a consortium of other smaller oil companies, Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahristani said at press briefing.

"We did not finalise any agreement with them because they refused to offer consultancy based on fees, as they wanted a share of the oil," he said.'

The hidden secret of this 'smash and grab' OIL-WAR occurred in March of 2001 when then Exxon CEO Lee Raymond addressed Cheney's secret energy/war planning meeting (in front of Pentagon brass who Cheney strangley ordering into this supposed 'energy' meeting), and said:

"In the near future, the acquisition of oil will not be able to be achieved through 'market based' forces (IE. buying the stuff), but will need to be secured through 'extra-market based' forces" (IE. military force).

Cheney did not have to tell the Pentagon brass what Raymond meant by 'extra-market based' forces --- but the US people took 7 years, a 'false flagged' attack that killed 3000 on 9/11, an illegal preemptive war crime against Iraq, over 4000 dead US 'working-class' kids, and millions of Iraqi innocent civilian deaths --- and now a looming nuclear war with Iran, to understand what Cheney and Raymond were planning in the very first days of the Bush 'corporatist Empire'.

The best and most insightful analysis of the 'smash and grab' OIL-WAR is in this WSWS (World Socialist Web Site) article:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jul2008/iraq-j01.shtml

"The Times continued: "It is unclear how much influence their work had on the ministry's decisions."

There is nothing unclear about it. The US government dictated terms that are set to bring back Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP, Total and Chevron, the very same multinational energy giants that dominated Iraqi oil production before Baghdad nationalized the sector 36 years ago. They, along with a consortium of smaller firms, have been offered no-bid contracts by the Iraqi government.

These so-called technical support agreements, worth $500 million each, represent the foot in the door for the major Western oil firms, giving them a decisive advantage over rival companies from Russia, China, India and elsewhere.

Iraq has proven crude reserves of 115 billion barrels plus another 112 trillion cubic feet of gas. Under conditions in which other nations, from Russia and Kazakhstan in the East to Venezuela and Bolivia in the West, are imposing tighter national control over their energy resources, the US occupation of Iraq has opened up the potential for an unparalleled profit bonanza for big oil.

That this was the principal aim of the US invasion in the first place is becoming increasingly impossible to deny. Behind all of the lies about "weapons of mass destruction" and supposed ties between Baghdad and Al Qaeda, the US war was about reinstating the domination of the US-based oil giants over the world's third largest petroleum reserves and blocking access to them by their foreign rivals.

Domination of strategic energy resources and their utilization to further Washington's increasingly desperate struggle to preserve its global economic hegemony were the real reasons that, as of Monday, 4,113 US troops have lost their lives, with nearly 30,000 more having returned from Iraq wounded, many of them grievously.

These predatory strategic aims, and the related profit interests of the oil conglomerates, are the sole justification for the slaughter of more than one million Iraqis and the transformation of nearly five million more into exiles or internal refugees.

The determination of both major political parties and the US ruling establishment as a whole to pursue this criminal war, whatever their tactical differences, was underscored Monday with President George W. Bush's signing into law another $162 billion war funding bill, sent to his desk by the Democratic leadership of the US Congress."

CD should arrange to start re-posting some of the fine WSWS analysis.

Is this even worthy of an article? Is there ANYBODY out there who believes the Iraqi stooge government is independent?

Ms. Rice, "The US government has stayed out of the matter of awarding the Iraqi oil contracts."

Complete and utter bullsh__. Uh, invading a sovereign nation was the first and most important step to influence Iraqi oil contracts. The US and the UK firms were shut out by Hussein, that's why those countries held out for so long on UN sanctions. Ya, right up until a few months after the invasion. Hmmm...

After the invasion of Iraq, the contracts held by Russian, French, and Chinese oil companies were nullified. Oil would once again be sold in US dollars. No-bid contracts to some of the world's largest and most profitable corporations, with those profits flowing to some of the world's wealthiest people.

Since the first Gulf War, the only way anybody could play in the Iraqi oil fields was if the kids from the US and Britain could play too.

So let's make 'em pay for the war! Bill the oil companies and their managers and shareholders on a individual level with the new and exciting war profiteers' wealth surtax! They needed control and the invasion got it for them. Now they can pay up! The costs of bribing Al-Maliki and his cabinet? Chump change. Make 'em pay.

The US military budget has been subsidizing the profits of the oil companies for generations. So cut the subsidy. In the Republican spirit of small government, quit using the invisible hand of the market to kill people in the name of corporate profit.

Tsunami, you probably know of many people around you in their "right mind" that would believe these people again and again. Never underestimate the level of sophistication in the disinformation. It is encrypted in the MSM and tailored for different regions, time zones, etc. I first got suspicious when I noted remarkable incongruities in the way the news played out here in MA vs. NC where my parents live. It's worlds apart, but it's the same news - kinda hard to explain here; sorry - but maybe you know what I mean.

At the same time, there is a latent belligerence in play that can molded to suit those of us who know how.

They took the trade towers down, killed 3000 Americans civilians , Firefighters, Policeman.

Started a 2 wars, 4000 GI's dead , 600000 Iraqis dead.

One Trillion dollars debt, torture, $4/gal gas going up.

But Wait theres more ,

We can't stop the insanity beacuse the spy network is running full blast , you will be destroyed if you try.

SO!!!!!!!!! IRAN IS NEXT.

Sure , God Bless America, and King George.

Wikipedia "Law of Usufruct":

Usufruct is the legal right to use and derive profit or benefit from property that belongs to another person, as long as the property is not damaged. In many legal usufruct systems of property, such as the traditional ejido system in Mexico, individuals or groups may only acquire the usufruct of the property, not legal land ownership.

Usufruct originates from civil law, where it is a real right of limited duration on the property of another. The holder of an usufruct, known as the usufructuary, has the right to use and enjoy the property, as well as the right to receive profits from the fruits of the property. The Latin words usus and fructus refer to the rights of use and fruit, respectively, and the English word usufruct derives from these Latin roots.

...

It has been stated in another story that the Americans don't want to work for fees, they want the oil. It's sad that these US scumb bags would try to lie their way out of this. Who in their right mind would believe anything anyone in this admin. says.

"...Condoleezza Rice [says] the deals are purely commercial matters. Ms. Rice, speaking on Fox News this month, said: 'The United States government has stayed out of the matter of awarding the Iraq oil contracts. It's a private sector matter.'..."

Condi Rice has learned an important Biblical lesson from her years at Stanford - "capitulate to the White Christian Guys and ye shall be Blessed Sevenfold!"

Obama will learn this too, but it will be too late for him. President McCain, Vice-President Rice, and their hot young wives will ensure the success of the Oil Chiefs in their Holy Works of God!

We tried to put a dictator, Saddam Hussein, in power so we could have access to the Iraqi oil, but he decided he didn't want to deal with us, so we punished him, removed him from power, and had him executed. This is just our latest attempt to gain control over the oil No surprises, and not new news.

We did the same thing in Afghanistan with the Taliban. We were fine with them and their brutal control of the Afghani people until they said you can't build your oil pipeline through our country. So, conveniently we blamed them for giving refuge to Osama Bin Laden and attacked them so we could do what we wanted to.

Interesting that the chaos that currently exists in both countries allows the U.S. and its corps to go about their business under the radar from most of the citizens of those countries and ours. Convenient, isn't it?

When advice about no-bid contracts is to the sound of the Advisors tanks and helicopters in the background,

When these Advisors have slaughtered 1 in 38 of your populaton
and there's no end in sight,

They are NOT advisors; They are brutal occupiers sinking their teeth in at gun-point. AND IT'S NOT 'ADVICE' NYT'S.

Rescinded Contracts: Look for Salih, even Maliki to be killed by "al-Queda"

That should get them signed.

To play Devil's advocate for a moment:

The country that controls the largest number of resources maintains the greatest power over others and prospers the most. The neo-con gang recognized many years ago that because of the dependence of not only the U.S. but other economies and developing nations on certain resources, oil in particular, in order for the U.S to maintain its top ranking in the world it would need to gain better control over the oil in the Middle East, and of course other resources elsewhere. If another country controls this oil, it gains control over the oil dependent U.S. economy, other world economies, and profits greatly in the selling of the resource.

If the current administration and those in the past would have said, listen U.S. citizens, we need to gain control over these resources or else our status and economic standing in the world will suffer greatly, you can imagine that most Americans would not have been willing to send troops off to fight to secure it. After all, it's only the kings of old that openly admitted that they were after power and spoils with war - nowadays, people will only go to war for things like justice and freedom, so that's the message we are sold, in whatever way they can sell it. The reasons for war have not changed, all that has is the justifications we must create for it.

Americans are not happy with how the U.S. standing in the world has fallen because of our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan (which is largely about access to oil as well). And they are not happy with the rising oil prices, which are now a lot farther out of our hands than ever before because of growing demand from India and China. And they would not have been happy if we hadn't taken any action in the Middle East and oil prices still rose because of growing demand elsewhere in the world.

Most U.S. citizens will only be happy when they can have it all, peace, cheap resources, top world standing, etc. Most Americans, it seems, don't want to share the world's resources with anyone else, otherwise they wouldn't continue to consume to the extent that they do with little regard for the actions needed for us to do so (usually exploiting other peoples and nations) and the consequences of doing so (other peoples and nations not liking us very much).

In their own way, the neo-con gang believes that its actions are all about perserving the power and glory of America, that let's face it most Americans have loved over the past century. The neo-cons saw the rising of other powers on the horizon and knew that for the U.S. to remain on top, action needed to be taken. For them, that action means securing U.S. power by military and economic warfare.

Americans want to have their cake and eat it too. They want all that they want, as cheaply as they want, and don't want to know, think about, or take any responsibility for the dirty work needed to ensure this. And it's not just Americans, people in general want an easy, guilt-free life of luxury. Fact of the matter is, with so many people competing for resources on this planet this just isn't possible - it never really has been possible.

Someone is going to profit from these resources such as Middle East oil, so why not U.S. companies vs. foreign ones. If it helps us to continue to live as oil junkies and live high on the hog as we have over the past century, what's the problem.

They may be no bid, but at least they are conventional consulting contracts to develop the oil fields. They are not the production sharing agreements that the US has been pushing, that would give the oil companies ownership of Iraqi oil production for decades.

The oil companies should be declared a "threat to National security"

With food prices, gas prices on an incredible rise airlines shutting down and the middle class paying for it all so oil companies can have record profits.

This is not the country my father and Grandfather helped make.

If oil companies will only do what is best for themselves then take the oil away from them and nationalize it.

Here's info from the Red Cross on the laws pertaining to occupying powers; how many of these has the US trampled upon? Information on the possession and use of immovable natural resources is at the bottom--who knows what the "law of usufruct" is?:

3. What are the most important principles governing occupation?

The duties of the occupying power are spelled out primarily in the 1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78), as well as in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law.

Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47) and protected persons themselves can in no circumstances renounce their rights (GC IV, art. 8).

The main rules of the law applicable in case of occupation state that:
# The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.
# Occupation is only a temporary situation, and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.
# The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.
# The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.
# To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation.
# The population in occupied territory cannot be forced to enlist in the occupier's armed forces.
# Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are prohibited.
# Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.
# Collective punishment is prohibited.
# The taking of hostages is prohibited.
# Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited.
# The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.
# The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities.
# Cultural property must be respected.
# People accused of criminal offences shall be provided with proceedings respecting internationally recognized judicial guarantees (for example, they must be informed of the reason for their arrest, charged with a specific offence and given a fair trial as quickly as possible).
# Personnel of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement must be allowed to carry out their humanitarian activities. The ICRC, in particular, must be given access to all protected persons, wherever they are, whether or not they are deprived of their liberty.

4. What rights does the occupying power have regarding property and natural resources in the occupied territory?

Private property

Private property cannot be confiscated by the occupier.

Food and medical supplies may be requisitioned exclusively for the use of the occupation forces and administration personnel themselves (i.e. not for purposes of export outside of the occupied territory and not for the benefit of anyone beyond the occupying personnel, unless necessary for the benefit of the population under occupation itself) and only if the needs of the civilian population have been taken into account (GC IV, art. 55).

Public property

The occupying power may seize any movable property, belonging to the state, which may be used for military operations (HR, art. 53).

The occupant does not acquire ownership of immovable public property in the occupied territory, since it is only a temporary administrator. Subject to restrictions regarding their exploitation and use, it can nevertheless make use of public property, including natural resources, but it must safeguard their capital value, in accordance with the law of usufruct (H R, art. 55).

Back to the Geneva Convention--Nothing an occupation government does is binding. Wonder who on Wall Street is going to insure the securities?

Is anyone here actually surprised by what was disclosed in this article? Hopefully, the Iraqi's have enough sense to negate the oil contracts.

Between the powerful US military machine in the Gulf and our war partner Israel, the US could raise a whole lot of hell on Iran and would have no trouble at all controlling the Straights. Iran could retaliate for a short while and might inflict some serious damage in the beginning, but ultimately in short order Iran would not have a military machine. Like Iraq, they could continue forever to stop us from totally occupying their Country. But, they would not be able to stop us from doing what we are doing in Iraq.
The question is: Would Russia and China sit back and let us do it? I hope not.

Why is this being leaked at this time?
It certainly is no surprise. I mean we are over there to protect "American Interests".
It is time to change what that means. Historically, it seems to have sprouted roots after the importation of african slaves was outlawed in defense of those who had left the U.S. to employ their ill-gotten gains in establishing slave plantations in Mexico and Central America. You know, like "from the halls of Montezuma".
Read Smedley Butler. Google William Walker and meditate on "Walker." History is written by whom? Can't you smell the bananas?

So much for operation "Iraqi Freedom"..."I'm with the US govt and I'm here to help." Sound familiar. We are such nice guys. They just don't get it. Oh well, time to invade Iran and help those folks out..just like Bosnia, Afghanistan and on and on.

Bernice:
Thanks. I'll check out the links. I knew the administration tailored PSA's have been one of the US benchmarks for some time.

I guess what the neocons want is American control of the crude from wellhead to pipline to tanker, with a pipeline to Haifa and umpteen military bases to back it up. Not to mention colonial-like Big Oil profits that would put the old British companies to shame. Deepa calls us vipers. Is that an evil enough description?

Hey Deepa:

We aren't all vipers. Somehow the vipers got themselves in charge and sold us a phony war, and some of us patriotic wannabe conservative "thinkers" still believe the con job is real.

X Marks the New Alpha Warrior

Show me a trampy lady
and I'll show you a warrior
or a patriot or a corporate clown
who looks good in leather
and plays Chopin kinda nice
like a new age Condoleezza Rice

Show me a patriot warrior
and I'l show you a high society lady
all class and style
you'll never emulate or tramp on
Hey don't tread on me

Show me who you are with
and I'll show you who you are
or want to be
like Genghis Kahn and the conspicuous who
who are kinda stale
like carbonized babies for freedom
and pennants that don't bleed
or plunder and oil you don't need

Isn't it interesting that CD switched this to the main position and put the other article in which the Iraqis have NOT signed the agreement over to the side?

Utterly corrupt. Shit like this makes Mugabe's gov't look honest and lawful.

I was thinking about the 'personhood' of corporations the other day and wondered if someone could answer this question? If a corporation is a 'person' under the law, than how on earth is it legal for that person to be owned? Didn't that sort of thing get banned by the outlawing of owning people - or slaves?

Mind you, the idea that these impersonal slaves, owned by the richest of 'free men', are busy turning all the rest of us into wage slaves is not a new one. I suppose the misery of being a corporate entity makes it want more company.

bbr-001: The final contracts haven't been signed, but Iraq has given the oil companies no-bid two-year contracts to provide "technical assistance" while the US continues to muscle the Iraqis in an effort to get them to sign the 20-40 year leases that give most of the profits that should go to Iraq to the oil giants instead. See www.handsoffiraqioil.org for more, and www.globalpolicy.org, the U.N. site, for articles gathered over the years.

And see the article "Slick Connctions: US Influence on Iraqi Oil, by Erik Leaver and Gregg Muttitt, Foreign Policy in Focus" (www.fpif.org), 07/17/2007. The article contains a time-line of US actions that begins with this item from February/March 2001: "White House Energy Taskforce produces a list of 'Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.' " This was 2 years before our invasion of Iraq and 7-8 months before one of the so-called "reasons" for the invasion, 9/11. You might subtitle this "Slick Dick."

Americans! You have got what you wanted out of the occupation, death and destruction in Iraq- OIL MIXED WITH INNOCENT BLOOD.

AN UNREPENTANT BROOD OF VIPERS!!!

This is the SAME THING Hitler did in the Ukraine. I see Bush is reading from Hitler's playbook.

First, not that international law really matters anymore, but I thought I remember reading somewhere that it is a breach of international law to fundamentally change the economic structure of a country...in the case of Iraq, from the government-owned oil industry to a privatized one, or one that invites in private developers and interests. The fragile point in this situation is indeed the question of Iraqi sovereignty and the degree and quality of the US involvement in writing the oil law.

I am also curious as to what role a potential invasion or bombing of Iran plays in this whole scheme. I initially thought it was motivated by the need to get the oil out of Iraq. Iran dominates the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, but upon looking at a map it will be possible--though a long overland trip--for Western corporations to get the oil out via Saudi Arabia, or through Jordan and Israel, (Kuwait and the Gulf might not be such a good idea because Iran can interfere with US shipping). Maybe they ARE looking for a water-passage for the oil. Or maybe the US simply remains threatened by the Shia majority in Iran, which always has the potential to destabilize any stability the US manages to impose upon Iraq (which will not be about worshiping Allah but about worshiping the US dollar). Maybe it's just a sick form of payback for or a replay of the Iran-Iraq War, in which the US backed Saddam with his poison gas and lost.

I'm totally confused. The Agence Presse France article just below says contracts WERE NOT signed. Maybe npr or BBC can get it right.

The Iraqis should not sign PSA's. Its their oil, and there is no advantage to us. The price of crude will be the same whether or not Big Oil gets a piece of the crude.

Oil and gas companies contributed more than $90 million to politicians since 2000.

The Iraq oil law, also referred to as the Iraq hydrocarbon law, is a proposed piece of legislation submitted to the Iraqi Council of Representatives in May 2007.

The Bush administration hired the consulting firm Bearing Point to help write the law in 2004. The bill was approved by the Iraqi cabinet in February 2007. The Bush administration considers the passage of the law a benchmark for the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.

Oil experts in Iraq say the law would enable United States companies to take control of Iraq's oil industry. The new law would authorise production share agreements (PSAs) which guarantees a 12.5 per cent profit for foreign oil companies. The industry had been completely nationalized by 1972. The government in the 1990s, under the presidency of Saddam Hussein, gave PSAs to Russian and Chinese companies which gave a profit percentage of less than 10 per cent.

The central government would distribute remaining oil revenues throughout the nation on a per capita basis.[1] The draft law would allow Iraq's provinces freedom from the central government in giving exploration and production contracts. Iraq's constitution allows governorates to form a semi-independent regions, fully controlling their own natural resources.

Shock and oil: In 2005, the latest year for which figures have been collated, Bearing Point paid $1m to lobbyists, equaling the record total it paid in 2003. That is five times its average annual bill for lobbyists prior to the war in Iraq.

http://libcom.org/news/oil-ministers-transfer-union-activists-a-human-rights-crime-06062008

How soon before we learn how many millions were kicked back (or went 'missing' as it is usually reported) to the so-called "Iraqi leaders" of their so-called "sovereign country" by the so-called "winners" of the no-bid oil "contracts?"

Believe you me . . . If there is an attack on Iran the last thing that you will have to worry about is paying taxes. There will certainly be many, many others things that will come into play. You can make up your own list.

Kind of ODD doncha think? that...on the VERY EVE of these ..."CONTRACTS" being ..what..CONSUMATED...back in the good ol US of A..The Bureau of Land Mis-Management puts a "TWO YEAR MORATORIUM" ON SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN THE WESTERN STATES...Hmmmmmm..Gee..think they..uhhh..GOT the WORD?

"We GOT IT...the OIL IS OURS...put everything else ..ON HOLD..we need to pay for the war..we need to sell the (sp)oils and recoup...hey..give us..shit..I dunno..TWO YEARS? ca you do that? great..I'll have my Girl call your Girl...to HELP WIH THE DETAILS.."

MOTHER FUCKERS!

DON'T PAY FOR IT...IF THE US ATTACKS IRAN..WILL YOU JOIN IN TAX REVOLT? WHAT WILL IT TAKE?

LIVE FREE OR DIE

was july 5th:

"[W]e've got what we call ministry advisory teams that work with the ministries to help them think through some of these challenges and issues. Price liberalization is a key aspect. Part of the World Bank's requirements, as they move on for their monetary fiscal responsibility they have to establish here in this country."

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2009&Itemid=128

...in no way helped choose which companies got the deals."

The powers behind the illegal invasion and plunder of Iraq were the companies that 'got' the deals...at the point of a bayonet.

actually this isnt a new discovery. general caldwell admitted this in a news brief on july 4 (or 5th) 2006.

he called them "ministry advisory teams." ive been waiting for the media to pick up on this and to hound them for details.

Soon you will be able to buy cars that run on electricity; if you hate Big Oil as much as I do and don't want to buy any more of their Blood Oil then buy one.

Bush and Cheney: "CHA-CHING!!!"

jj

This NYTs article clouds the issue whether the Iraqi government is a legitimate government.

It's NOT! It's a puppet (proxy) government! No question about it!

Can you say PROPAGANDA.

Mission Accomplished!

Why compete for oil resources and pay a fair price when we can just invade a country and take it?

A very poor example being set.